SPURRED on by an emotional appeal Tuesday from Lisa Beamer – whose husband, Todd, led the passenger revolt against the hijackers of Flight 93 – members of Congress unveiled their proposal to build a national memorial on the National Mall in Washington to the victims of terrorism.

Originally intended to honor just the victims of 9/11, it has since been expanded to include the victims of Oklahoma City. Others will surely follow.

I don’t mean to sound crass or unfeeling, but is this really such a good idea? Particularly now – and particularly the way organizers are going about it?

The nation’s continuing grief over the events of 9/11 is understandable. But the rush to build a massive monument in Washington, like those calls to leave the entire World Trade Center site empty as a permanent memorial, seems more like a macabre celebration of victimhood.

If only the rebuilding of lower Manhattan would proceed this swiftly.

The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Jim Turner (D-Texas), demands that a site be selected and a final design approved within 12 months – a process that normally takes six years.

It also bypasses current law requiring that 25 years pass before such monuments are erected in the national capital. But despite Turner’s insistence that “the uniqueness of what we’re dealing with here” justifies an exemption, there is good reason to move more slowly.

“Succeeding generations provide a more objective viewpoint when evaluating the most appropriate way to honor historical events or individuals of historical significance,” National Park Service official Daniel Smith told Congress.

Consider: Despite the national outpouring of grief over the then-unprecedented assassination of Abraham Lincoln after a four-year war unique in the American experience, a monument to his memory wasn’t built in Washington until 57 years after his death.

Similar monuments to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson weren’t begun until 49 and 117 years, respectively, after their passing.

The Bush administration favors a national monument, although not on the Mall: The National Park Service notes, correctly, that commemorating historical events is best done at the actual site itself.

At Pearl Harbor, for example, memory of those thousands who were killed is tastefully recalled at the simple, yet profoundly moving, shrine built over the wreckage of the sunken USS Arizona.

But Turner and his colleagues – the bill already is co-sponsored by 126 House members – envision a grand monument.

Given all the emotion surrounding 9/11, it’s hardly surprising that proponents want a monument on a grand scale. “This can’t just be a little thing,” says Rep. Jim Hansen (R-Utah).

But should America be rushing to build a massive monument to victimhood?

Lisa Beamer says she wants “to bring my kids to a place and show [them] their daddy’s name on it.” That’s entirely understandable. But I suspect that Mrs. Beamer’s children can take far greater pride in recounting the national wave of pride that Americans took in her late husband’s courageous actions.

What he did will live forever – and will have far more meaning to future generations than a simple name carved into a piece of stone.

Most importantly, though, America should not be building monuments to its most horrendous defeat.

Rep. Turner says he envisions a symbol “that marks the commitment and resolve of this nation to win the war against terrorism,” one that will demonstrate that “America stood tall, we persevered and we defeated hate and evil.”

He’s got the right idea. But why, then, build a monument that commemorates death and destruction?

Better to construct a permament edifice that celebrates America’s eventual victory over international terrorism – one that, to be sure, appropriately commemorates those whose lives were lost in terrorist attacks and in the military battles that followed.

But one that speaks to how determined Americans took the events of 9/11 and turned them into a note of triumph.

Which, in turn, would help focus Americans on their most important immediate priority: not just mourning the dead, but winning the war.